The unmistakable impression of Burnham’s footprint remains

Aug 17, 2008 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

Remarks by Raphael Trotman, M.P.
on the Motion Honouring Linden
Forbes Sampson Burnham, O.E., S.C.

Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham, O.E, S.C., was an enigma. There is no escaping or denying that fact.

To many he was a visionary and an extraordinary statesman, and yet also, to just as many as well he was the villain who took Guyana to its nadir.

No matter what we do, or say, that is the history of our country and we have to recognize and accept it. Burnham was undoubtedly an outstanding student, great orator, gifted lawyer, visionary, and wise and wily politician.

That we are debating him now after twenty-three years since his demise is testament to the influence that he had on Guyana.

No other Guyanese has made such an imprint on Guyana, and the Caribbean Region, as he did. In fact, I hasten to say that no other person, or President, in the foreseeable future, is likely to have an impact on Guyana and things Guyanese as he has.

The name Burnham became synonymous with Guyana, and we were all weighed and measured by this fact. His benefits and his burdens became our benefits and our burdens. Twenty-three years since his demise, and still the unmistakable impression of his footprint remains.

Whether it is to be found in towns and streets named in his honour, in the roads, housing schemes and bridges which we still frequent, or the frequent references to rigged elections and failed policies, the name Burnham stays on, almost hauntingly, never really having been put into a proper place of eternal rest. Can we do so today? I wonder.

Mr. Speaker, I won’t pretend to know everything about the politics of Burnham or about the inner workings of his cabinet and policies as others here undoubtedly can justifiably boast.

My introduction, and knowledge of him, came through his wife and former First Lady, Viola, the quintessential lady in every regard, and his children and grand-children with whom I maintain a very close relationship today.

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to say that despite whatever may be said about the man Burnham, that in the many years that I have known the family, I have found no evidence of extravagance, of arrogance, or even a hint of performance in them.

In many respects they were just as affected and bothered as the next person was by the happenings of his time.

As I said before, there were many benefits and many burdens that resulted from his presence in Guyana, and it is not my intention to tabulate and calculate these as if to place them in a scale of judgment to measure right and wrong, but to say that no objective assessment of the man can be complete if we attempt to airbrush away his blemishes, and to buff his accomplishments.

The same is true in the reverse were we to seek to diminish his many accomplishments and dredge to the fore his mistakes and blemishes as if these were the only defining characteristics of his life. We cannot escape that reality.

Burnham’s life was inextricably linked with that of another former President, Cheddi Jagan and if we if continue to deny the reality of the impact of their individual and collective lives on the state and psyche of the people then we will be guilty of being false not only to ourselves, but also to the generations past, and yet to come.

There is a certain irony in us having motions coming in successive order to honour two men whose lives were shaped and defined by each other.

Perhaps our purposes would have been better served if we had taken them together and in that way have a more objective, definitive, and constructive discussion on their lives, and contributions.

The whole cycle of patting each other on the back and then engaging in fights, while Guyana continues to bleed, has been described by some to be pathetic, self-serving, and useless.

Interestingly, the actions, failures, and even cooperation of these two men, Jagan and Burnham, have left us with many good memories and memorials, but yet still unfortunately, as a divided nation and a destroyed and displaced people.

Despite the meaningful and measurable contributions that were made, the critical question of whether we are better off today is left unanswered. We speak of legacy, but have we done anything to critically assess the legacies of those we wish to honour and thereby ensure that we move forward with the wholesome, and discard the unwanted, or are we just pretending to be constantly advancing the legacies of those we wish to honour?

Mr. Speaker, the lives of Forbes Burnham and that of his sometimes colleague and sometimes opponent Cheddi Jagan must be viewed in the context of the happenings of their era when the cold-war brought its freezing grip to Guyana and determined and influenced many of the decisions taken by our leaders of the day. Guyana fell victim to the war, and remains, unto today, a badly wounded casualty.

We have experimented, critically supported, condemned, killed, and defamed each other, sometimes not realizing that we were acting out a script handed to us by colonial masters and superpowers.

Where are we today when reliable estimates say that there are as many as 700,000 Guyanese scattered like homeless people across the globe and making profound and worthwhile contributions to other societies–yet unable to grasp the opportunity to remain home, and to do the same for their motherland. Should we really be celebrating at all?

Mr. Speaker, when the AFC was alerted that there was going to be a Motion to honour the contribution of the late President LFS Burnham, we agreed in principle to participate in this event for the primary reason that it is time that we as Guyanese, and particularly Guyanese leaders, bring both amplification and closure to a past that was both glorious and many times sordid.

The story of Guyana is a story of unending contradiction of the type that even Marx and Engels could not unravel.

Our presence here today is not to indulge in hero worshipping, but to say that in our leaders, both past and present, we can find good and bad.

We in the AFC believe that we cannot move forward unless we confront our ambivalent past, not by conflating it and pretending that the good and bad were fused to produce a perfect state, but rather, by disaggregating that past and separating the ignominious from the honourable.

There is no doubt that events such as this are a clumsy attempt at best to give recognition to the works of past leaders, but they nevertheless constitute a valiant start to healing which we support.

It would have been so much better, Mr. Speaker, if this country had a Committee or Commission made up of eminent citizens, including those who rose to high status such as past and serving Presidents, who met and decided on the manner of honouring of citizens and from whom from time to time recommendations could be made to this National Assembly for honours to be bestowed through Parliamentary Motions and otherwise. What we have is a situation of “your heroes and my heroes.” You exalt yours, and I will exalt mine.

Within the region Jamaica stands out as the closest example of a country with a bitter past that has dealt with the issue of “my hero, your hero” successfully. Perhaps we may wish to look there for good example.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot bring healing and reconciliation if we do not move to the place where we honour heroes nationally and not in a partisan way.

We are being forced and encouraged to bring individual motions to celebrate, venerate, and exalt our own heroes in a kind of one for me and one for you syndrome.

Under the current system for the award of national honours, if you’re not one of the chosen few then you have nothing to get.

The President of Guyana is the Chancellor of the Orders of Guyana, and is advised by an Advisory Council which comprises the Chancellor of the Judiciary, four persons appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister, one member appointed after consultation with the Leader of Opposition, one member by the President, and one other member who holds an O.E. There is little wonder why then there has been no investiture ceremony in Guyana for the past six years. This, for a country that calls itself a modern and inclusive democracy, has to change.

In this regard the AFC recommends that the process of honouring of citizens of Guyana be de-politicised and that a non-partisan committee be established to craft new and transparent criteria, and to decide on the award of national honours.

This committee must not operate like the one which arbitrarily issues national awards such as was the case when Shivnarine Chanderpaul was recently honoured.

Quite frankly, the man deserves far more than an AA because what he has achieved for Guyana, and the Region, is vastly superior to the contribution of many in this Chamber.

South Africa did it successfully by reforming its system of national orders to meaningfully embrace their new democracy, and “to reflect the spirit of a non-racial, non-sexist democracy where a culture of human rights prevails.”

I end, Mr. Speaker, not only by hailing the exploits and accomplishments of Forbes Burnham, but by holding out the expectation for a better Guyana after today.

It is significant that Carifesta is to be held in Guyana in a few days time and there can be no better tribute to Forbes Burnham than to have a successful and glorious event that serves not only to showcase the talents of the Caribbean, but moreover, to fuse our cultures, our experiences, and our destiny.

If it takes this event to bring closure to our bitter past then I am happy and hope that this was not an exercise to feather one’s ego and score points in an unending game with no winners, but that by tomorrow there will be a new epoch of cooperation and understanding, and an end to the ignorance and the prejudice which it breeds.

Perhaps the symbolism of the bridging of two of Guyana’s rivers will not be lost as we reach out not just to river banks, but to each other.

---

---